Is the blood-brain barrier really disrupted in all glioblastomas? A critical assessment of existing clinical data.

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) excludes the vast majority of cancer therapeutics from normal brain. However, the importance of the BBB in limiting drug delivery and efficacy is controversial in high-grade brain tumors, such as glioblastoma (GBM). The accumulation of normally brain impenetrant radiographic contrast material in essentially all GBM has popularized a belief that the BBB is uniformly disrupted in all GBM patients so that consideration of drug distribution across the BBB is not relevant in designing therapies for GBM. However, contrary to this view, overwhelming clinical evidence demonstrates that there is also a clinically significant tumor burden with an intact BBB in all GBM, and there is little doubt that drugs with poor BBB permeability do not provide therapeutically effective drug exposures to this fraction of tumor cells. This review provides an overview of the clinical literature to support a central hypothesis: that all GBM patients have tumor regions with an intact BBB, and cure for GBM will only be possible if these regions of tumor are adequately treated.

Normative data and clinically significant effect sizes for single-item numerical linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) scales.

BACKGROUND: Single-item assessments have been the most often-used measures in National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer control clinical trials, but normative data are not available. Our objective was to examine the normative data and clinically significant effect sizes for single-item numerical linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) scale for overall quality of life (QOL). METHODS: We analyzed baseline data from 36 clinical trials and 6 observational studies with various populations, including healthy volunteers, cancer trial patients (patients with advanced incurable cancer or patients receiving treatment with curative intent) and hospice patients as well as their caregivers. The overall QOL LASA was rated 0 (as bad as it can be) to 10 (as good as it can be). We calculated the summary statistics and the proportion of patients reporting a clinically meaningful deficit (CMD) of a score equal to 5 or less on the 0-10 scale. RESULTS: In total, for the collective sample of 9,295 individuals, the average overall QOL reported was 7.39 (SD = 2.11) with a markedly skewed distribution with roughly 17% reporting a score of 5 or below indicating a clinically significant deficit in overall QOL. Hospice patients report a much worse average score of 5.7 upon entry to hospice; hospice caregivers average 7.4. Cancer patients vary within these two extremes with most patients averaging in the 7's on the 0-10 scale (range, 0 to 10 p-value < 0.0001). Men and women's QOL distributions were virtually identical (with average of 7.6 vs. 7.5, p-value = 0.046). Overall QOL was weakly related to performance status with a Spearman correlation coefficient of -0.29 (p-value < 0.0001). Overall QOL was related to tumor response (p-value = 0.0094), i.e. patients with a full or partial response reported a CMD in 11.4% of cases compared to 14.4% among those with stable disease and 18.5% among those with disease progression. Data missingness was high for performance status and tumor response associations. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the normative data for cancer patients and healthy volunteers for overall QOL using the LASA. These can serve as benchmarks for future studies and inform clinical practice decision-making.

Impact of imaging measurements on response assessment in glioblastoma clinical trials.

We provide historical and scientific guidance on imaging response assessment for incorporation into clinical trials to stimulate effective and expedited drug development for recurrent glioblastoma by addressing 3 fundamental questions: (i) What is the current validation status of imaging response assessment, and when are we confident assessing response using today's technology? (ii) What imaging technology and/or response assessment paradigms can be validated and implemented soon, and how will these technologies provide benefit? (iii) Which imaging technologies need extensive testing, and how can they be prospectively validated? Assessment of T1 +/- contrast, T2/FLAIR, diffusion, and perfusion-imaging sequences are routine and provide important insight into underlying tumor activity. Nonetheless, utility of these data within and across patients, as well as across institutions, are limited by challenges in quantifying measurements accurately and lack of consistent and standardized image acquisition parameters. Currently, there exists a critical need to generate guidelines optimizing and standardizing MRI sequences for neuro-oncology patients. Additionally, more accurate differentiation of confounding factors (pseudoprogression or pseudoresponse) may be valuable. Although promising, diffusion MRI, perfusion MRI, MR spectroscopy, and amino acid PET require extensive standardization and validation. Finally, additional techniques to enhance response assessment, such as digital T1 subtraction maps, warrant further investigation.

Physician perspective on incorporation of oncology patient quality-of-life, fatigue, and pain assessment into clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as pain, fatigue, and quality of life (QOL) are important for morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Systematic approaches to collect and incorporate PROs into clinical practice are still evolving. We set out to determine the impact of PRO assessment on routine clinical practice. METHODS: Beginning in July 2010, the symptom assessment questionnaire (SAQ) was administered to every patient in a solid tumor oncology practice at an academic center. The SAQ measures pain, fatigue, and QOL, each on a scale of 0 to 10 points. Results were available to providers before each visit in the electronic medical record. Eighteen months after the SAQ was implemented, an online survey was sent to 83 oncology care providers regarding the use of the SAQ and how it affected their clinical practice, including discussion with patients, duration of visits, and work burden. RESULTS: A total of 53% of care providers completed the online survey, producing 44 evaluable surveys. Of these, 86% of care providers reported using information from the SAQ; > 90% of care providers indicated the SAQ did not change the length of clinic visits or contribute to increased work burden. A majority of care providers felt that the SAQ had helped or enhanced their practice. Providers endorsed the SAQ for facilitating communication with their patients. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that simple single-item measures of pain, fatigue, and QOL can be incorporated into oncology clinical practice with positive implications for both patients and physicians without increasing duration of visits or work burden.

Validation of single-item linear analog scale assessment of quality of life in neuro-oncology patients.

Assessment of patient quality of life (QOL) requires balancing the details provided by multi-item assessments with the reduced burden of single-item assessments. In this project, we investigated the psychometric properties of single-item Linear Analog Scale Assessments (LASAs) for patients with newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas. Measures included QOL LASAs (overall, physical, emotional, spiritual, intellectual), Symptom Distress Scale (SDS), Profile of Mood States (POMS; overall, confusion, fatigue), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain (FACT-Br; overall, brain, physical, emotional). Associations of LASA measures with SDS, POMS, and FACT-Br domains and with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (PS) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were assessed. Repeated measures ANOVA models compared the change over time of LASAs and SDS, POMS, and FACT-Br. Two hundred five patients completed the assessments across three time points. To allow comparison across measures, all scores were converted to a scale of 0-100, with higher scores indicating better QOL. LASA mean scores ranged from 60 to 78; SDS, POMS, and FACT-Br ranged from 62 to 81. FACT-Br physical (P<0.001) and POMS fatigue subscale (P=0.005) decreased over time, as did LASA physical (P=0.08). LASA scales were strongly associated with corresponding scales on SDS, POMS, and FACT-Br (0.44

Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods.

Significant limitations are associated with the use of standard radiographic measurements as indicators of response in glioma therapy trials. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were recently introduced in an attempt to standardize and simplify assessment of response to treatment in cancer clinical trials. However, their applicability in gliomas has been assessed in only a very small number of patients. Our aim was to validate radiographic response assessment in newly diagnosed glioma patients. Sixty-seven newly diagnosed glioma patients participating in nine North Central Cancer Treatment Group glioma trials were included; 565 MRI scans were analyzed. All scans were performed with the same technique. Kappa statistics were calculated to determine agreement between assessment methods. Cox proportional hazards analyses and time-dependent Cox models were used to assess the association between different measurement methods and overall survival. Results showed agreement between the one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) measurements both for T2 images and for gadolinium-enhanced images. Comparison of duration of response and time to progression as assessed by eight different methods showed similarity in response assessments by 1D, 2D, area, and volume gadolinium measurements. In contrast, time to progression was significantly shorter when assessed by 1D-T2 or 2D-T2 images as compared to area-T2 or volume-T2 images. This set of data indicates that RECIST could be used instead of 2D imaging for response assessment in newly diagnosed glioma trials. Overall, responses as determined by any tumor measurement method did not correlate with patient survival for either enhancing or nonenhancing tumors, although the small number of responders limits definitive conclusions. Time-dependent Cox models demonstrated that, in contrast to the case of nonenhancing tumors, progression as determined by 1D, 2D, area, and volume measurements in gadolinium-enhanced images was predictive of survival of patients with enhancing tumors.

Dealing with a deluge of data: an assessment of adverse event data on North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials.

PURPOSE: Adverse events (AEs) are monitored in clinical trials for patient safety, to satisfy reporting requirements, and develop safety profiles. Recently, much attention has been placed on the reporting of serious AEs (SAEs) that are either life threatening or lethal in clinical trials. However, SAEs comprise a small subset of all AE data collected for trials; the majority of AE data collected are routine AEs (RAEs) regarding non-life-threatening events. We assessed the utility of the RAE data collected, relative to the volume. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We surveyed the RAE data from 26 North Central Cancer Treatment Group coordinated trials. RESULTS: A total of 8,318 (11%) of 75,598 of RAEs required queries. Of these, 86% were protocol-required RAEs, 83% of RAEs required per protocol were within normal limits (eg, platelets) or not present, and 61% of extra AEs were mild. One fifth of RAEs were considered unlikely to be related or unrelated to treatment. Overall, 3% of events were severe, life threatening, or caused death. Only 1% of RAE data reported required expedited reporting (eg, via Adverse Event Expedited Reporting System). Results indicate that 72% of RAEs would be eliminated if only the maximum severity per patient and type were required. These results were validated in a large phase III trial. CONCLUSION: The majority of RAEs identified, transcribed, and entered are not clinically important. Our data suggest that reducing the number of AEs monitored will affect substantially neither overall patient safety nor compromise evaluation of regimens undergoing testing. We present several considerations for such a reduction in data collection, as well as a policy that we have used to address the deluge of RAE data.